**Official** England in New Zealand

[TT Boy]

If it's anything but that that'll be madness too.

Alan Richardson? You ARE kidding me?

Yeah that decision does not have a lot going for it. His a 32 year old medium pacer who apparently bowled well in a first class division where aside from Somerset and his boys, your hard pressed to find cricketers who can hold a bat, let alone use it.

 

[Richard]

I would usually agree with you, but totally ridding the scene of Prior is the best thing he's ever done.

DWTA, taking Raymond Illingworth's position as COS was the best thing he ever did. And unlike Prior, he didn't even put Raymond in there ITFP.

 

[ozone]

TBH, Prior was only ever on the scene because he was Peter Moores boy and as there was no clear alternative, Moores went with him. I don't think Graveny can be blamed for that one.

 

[Shoggz]

Although I'm in two minds about the actual decision, I think it's quite refreshing that the selectors have actually had the balls to drop Prior.

I genuinely think Strauss's omission from the Sri Lanka trip was a 'kick in the pants' to make him sharpen up his act.

 

[BoyBrumby]

That raises a good point, actually; what has Strauss done to be recalled? They dropped him for poor form, he's not gone back and dominated yet they pick him again. Sends a confusing message.

I think the whole issue is clouded by the central contracts. It would've made no sense at all to award Strauss one and then it to become a 12-month sinecure so they probably felt obliged to recall him.

Typical of the muddle-headed thinking of our selectors he was given one & then less than a month later omitted for the Sri Lankan tour.

No, Graveney essentially explained that Mustard was not picked because he was considered the be the 2nd-best long-form-of-game wicketkeeper in the country, but purely because he'd been in Sri Lanka for the ODIs.

If anyone (who knows anything whatsoever about cricket) seriously puts Mustard as a better wicketkeeper-batsman than Foster, though, I'll probably be forced to kill them.

If Mustard had've ripped up the ODIs Graveney may've had a case, but he was pretty ordinary. His selection was pretty left-field in the first place, I don't actually recall anyone mentioning him even as a possible for the ODI leg beforehand, so his rention is a wee bit baffling IMHO.

England Test stats
867 matches, 638 caps

England ODI stats
482 matches, 206 caps

Australia Test stats
691 matches, 398 caps

Australia ODI stats
669 matches, 163 caps

It's especially amazing when I think that players like Dorey, Cosgrove, Lewis and Hauritz have an ODI cap.

Funny stuff. Obviously 18 counties versus 6 states has a part to play in the difference but maybe that in itself should be an argument for thinning our FC ranks out a bit.

Never happen tho, obv.

 

[Richard]

If Mustard had've ripped up the ODIs Graveney may've had a case, but he was pretty ordinary. His selection was pretty left-field in the first place, I don't actually recall anyone mentioning him even as a possible for the ODI leg beforehand, so his rention is a wee bit baffling IMHO.

Well Beevs did, but he'd tell us Gordon Muchall should play for England, so he doesn't really count. AND NO, THAT'S NOT A "DIG" AT HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So don't anyone start on that.

Mustard's ODI selection was fairly typical "one-season selection" sort of stuff, really - Mustard had been crap for years, had 1 decent season, was "an aggressive opener", and given the current fascination with having an aggressive wicketkeeper-opener, he was straight in there.

I agree that it didn't make any sense whatsoever to pick Mustard for the Tests and I said so at the time. But at least the decision now appears in somewhat more clarity than had originally seemed the case; we now know that no-one in-committee actually believes he's a better First-Class batsman than James Foster, which is something at least. But the fact that he was retained for the New Zealand leg ahead of Foster still baffles, and we can only assume the situation is the same as in SL.

If I was told that Prior was to be gone for this leg, I'd have gone for Foster and Ambrose, every time. With the former the first-choice.

 

[Shoggz]

If Mustard had've ripped up the ODIs Graveney may've had a case, but he was pretty ordinary. His selection was pretty left-field in the first place, I don't actually recall anyone mentioning him even as a possible for the ODI leg beforehand, so his rention is a wee bit baffling IMHO.

I seem to remember some of the more rabid Durham fans (e.g. Scaly Piscine) calling for his inclusion last year.

 

[Richard]

Beat ya to it.

Well Beevs did, but he'd tell us Gordon Muchall should play for England, so he doesn't really count. AND NO, THAT'S NOT A "DIG" AT HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So don't anyone start on that.

Beevs = Craig Beevers = Scaly piscine, BTW.

 

[Shoggz]

Right!

As a relative newcomer, I sometimes wish there was a Cricketweb Glossary!

 

[Richard]

I can email you a list of names if you like. Best to put it to good use.

Newcomer. You've been here not that far short of 2 years!

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

TBH, Prior was only ever on the scene because he was Peter Moores boy and as there was no clear alternative, Moores went with him. I don't think Graveny can be blamed for that one.

Rubbish. Prior was in the side because of weight of runs. He demanded selection at the time and regardless of that, there's no justification for dropping him now. Doesn't matter if Graveney picked him. He shouldn't be dropping him.

 

[ozone]

Rubbish. Prior was in the side because of weight of runs. He demanded selection at the time and regardless of that, there's no justification for dropping him now. Doesn't matter if Graveney picked him. He shouldn't be dropping him.

Weight of Runs? I haven't looked up the stats but I wouldn't mind betting James Foster scored more FC runs in 2006, the season which selection must have been based on. And if weight of runs is so important, why the hell isn't Mark Ramprakash even in the squad? Prior's been crap so why should he stay in the team. The two things you look for in a wicket-keeper batsman are runs and being able to catch. Matt Prior doesn't contribute either consistently.

 

[Shoggz]

I can email you a list of names if you like. Best to put it to good use.

Newcomer. You've been here not that far short of 2 years!

Gosh, is it really that long! It feels less as I haven't been able to post very much.

A 15 year old daughter addicted to 'MySpace' etc. makes time on the PC hard to come by.

Having said that, I did take the time to read the complete Ashes 2005 thread!

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Weight of Runs? I haven't looked up the stats but I wouldn't mind betting James Foster scored more FC runs in 2006, the season which selection must have been based on. And if weight of runs is so important, why the hell isn't Mark Ramprakash even in the squad? Prior's been crap so why should he stay in the team. The two things you look for in a wicket-keeper batsman are runs and being able to catch. Matt Prior doesn't contribute either consistently.

Prior scored marginally more runs than Foster (112 in 1 more innings) in 2006 at a slightly lower average. He was picked on weight of runs. If Foster dramatically outscored him, you'd have a point, but I think it was pretty clear that Prior was there and thereabouts for a while before he was picked. I'm not arguing that Foster is the better option. Alls I'm saying is that Prior deserved the call-up, given that England wanted a batsman-wicketkeeper.

Mark Ramprakash isn't in the team because he's played several Tests and failed to average over 30. Oh yea, and he's almost 40! There's a huge difference. I'm a big fan of Ramprakash (I saw him score a ton against the Aussies in 2001) but I can understand the reasons why he would not be selected now. It's an entirely different situation to Prior. Matt Prior has played three Test series and scored runs in 2 of the 3. He's hardly been a failure. Yes, he hasn't caught stunningly, but I maintain that catching was a secondary consideration when he was selected. Just like Geraint Jones. It's the wrong approach, but it's been the England approach.

 

[Shoggz]

I wonder if there was any temptation within the selection meetings to cut this 'generation' of wicket keepers out altogether and bring in young Steven Davies?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Would prefer Mustard to Davies. Davies isn't ready. And Mustard won't amount to much, so I wouldn't mind seeing him wasted.

 

[ozone]

I wonder if there was any temptation within the selection meetings to cut this 'generation' of wicket keepers out altogether and bring in young Steven Davies?

Probably went through there minds, but it could have a negative affect on him and ruin him as a player.

 

[Richard]

I wonder if there was any temptation within the selection meetings to cut this 'generation' of wicket keepers out altogether and bring in young Steven Davies?

Would be a horrible idea. Just when someone looks like they might be the genuine article, throw them in too young.

Davies' form so far in his career has been encouraging, but not yet compelling. The minute it starts to be, hopefully within a year or two, he should be in there. And with any luke then we actually will have an Alec Stewart for the next 15 years.

 

[Richard]

Would prefer Mustard to Davies. Davies isn't ready. And Mustard won't amount to much, so I wouldn't mind seeing him wasted.

One of the more Naughties I've ever seen. Sure there's some deep-and-meaningful something there somewhere, but I've missed it.

 

[Silver Arrow]

I feel it should also be noted that Panesar has made way for Tredwell in the ODI squad, Phil Mustard is still in the Test squad (and therefore is he perhaps number one?!) and that unsurprisingly Ravi Bopara has been disposed of from the Test boys.

From BBC Sport - Graveney - who revealed he had been unable to contact Prior - said that Ambrose, who scored 858 runs in last year's Championship at an average of 45.15, would start as first-choice keeper in Tests and Mustard in the one-dayers.